Actus Reus and Mens Rea
- Created by: jesskeayy
- Created on: 02-05-19 11:25
View mindmap
- Actus Reus + Mens Rea
- Actus Reus
- Voluntary and positive conduct, proof that D did ‘x’.
- Causation: must demonstrate that the result was caused by D's conduct/omission.
- If the link between D's act/omission cannot be proven beyond reasonable doubt, there will be no conviction
- Factual: Did D's conduct/omission cause the result?
- But for test
- But for D's actions, would the result have occurred? If not, no causation.
- R v White
- R v Dyson: victim died sooner with D's intervention. Factual causation met
- But for D's actions, would the result have occurred? If not, no causation.
- But for test
- Legal: Was D's conduct/omission a substantial, blameworthy and operating cause?
- Legal cause must be 'substantial', must be more than de minimis
- Slightly trifling, negligible, insignificant
- Must be blameworthy
- R v Dalloway: blameworthy conduct not the legal cause of death
- Cause must be operative. Conduct must be a significant cause of the result. Chain must not be broken
- Nous Actus Interviniens- Break in chain
- R v Empress: can come about through: natural events, actions of V, acts of a third party
- Natural acts only break the chain if they are unforeseen:
- Hart [1986]
- Intervention form V
- Foreseeability: R v Roberts
- Voluntariness: R v Kennedy
- Thin skull rule: Hayward
- Reasonableness: R v Blaue
- Medical treatment
- R v Jordan: wrong medication prescribed
- R v Smith: doctors mistreatment of V was not the operating cause of death, so D still liable.
- Nous Actus Interviniens- Break in chain
- Legal cause must be 'substantial', must be more than de minimis
- Omissions
- reluctance to impose liability for omission to act
- Liability occurs where: 1. offence is capable of being committed by omission. 2. duty to act. 3. breach of duty to act
- Airedale NHS Trust v Bland
- 1. Statutory duty. 2. Official duty. 3. Contractual duty. 4.familial duty to act. 5. duty (voluntary assumption of care). 6. duty (creation of a dangerous situation).
- 1. R v Dytham
- 3. R v Pittwood
- 4. R v Gibbons and Proctor
- 5. R v Nicholls (1874) R v Istan [1893]
- 6. R v Miller (awareness)
- reluctance to impose liability for omission to act
- Mens Rea
- Intention
- Blameworthiness for the crime
- R v Moloney [1985] intention given its ordinary meaning
- Foresight is not intention
- Hancock and Shankland [1986]
- Hales [2005] motive is not intention
- Cunliffe v Goodman [1950] direct intention
- Mohan [1976] means to an end
- Hales [2005] motive is not intention
- Hancock and Shankland [1986]
- Oblique intention
- Woolin[1999] virtual certainty
- Dividing line between recklessness and intention
- Oblique intention is about risk. Direct intention is about purpose, not risk.
- Dividing line between recklessness and intention
- Woolin[1999] virtual certainty
- Blameworthiness for the crime
- Recklessness
- Subjective- D's reckless if he foresees the risk and goes on to run it
- Size of risk is irrelevant; Brady [2006]
- How much the risk is considered is irrelevant; Parker [1977]
- Objective- D's reckless is he runs a risk that a reasonable person would have foreseen
- Subjective: R v Cunningham[1957] R v G and R [2003]
- Objective: R v Caldwell [1981]
- Subjective- D's reckless if he foresees the risk and goes on to run it
- Coincidence of Mr and AR
- D must hold requisite MR at the time the act is carried out
- Continuing act approach: Fagan [1969]
- Omissions approach: Miller [1983]
- Transferred malice: Latimer (1886)
- D must hold requisite MR at the time the act is carried out
- Intention
- Actus Reus
Comments
No comments have yet been made